"Alexander D. Mitchell IV" wrote
in :


"jazzkid" wrote in message
oups.com..
.
ahhem.....where did i say Bud was a homebrewer?
corn HAS been an adjunct in beer since brewers arrived in
the u.s. since it IS a native grain..innocent mistake,
burn a cross in my yard...

Let's point out that not everyone out there abides by the
German Reinheitsgebot, or Purity Law, of 1516--the one
widely cited that all German beers must use only water,
malted barley,

Appended to include "malted grain." Wheat and rye among them.
I'll never understand why they have not yet embraced corn...

hops, and yeast. Not even the Germans obey
this any more.

Dang EEC. Or EU. Or whatever it's called. Whatever it is,
it's now voluntary, and many (if not most) German brewers still
follow the Reinhietsgestupid (Protectionist bullshit that meant
and means nothing.)

And I'm also a homebrewer especially fond of throwing all
kinds of weird adjuncts in my beers.
But corn (and corn sugar) gets dissed for particular
reasons. It's cheap, it adds almost no discernible
positive attributes to better beer recipes,

I suspect you haven't attempted a PrePro or an Abbey. Or even a
trad Bitter or fruit beer (And **** the rest of you in advance:
I had an Oud Beersel Kriek the other day, and while not
spectacular is was very much enjoyable.) Adjuncts have a
legitimate place in brewing, period.

and it fuels
every bad memory of folks' first homebrew, particularly in
the cases of folks who bought certain cans of extract and
followed the directions on the can label.

In my experience homebrewing, I have never, once, ever found
adjuncts to contribute to hangovers. Not once. Ever. If this
were so, mead (or wine) would be undrinkable.

In my experience homebrewing, most bad first memories are due to
a buttload of hops. Or a high-grav mess ala Arrogant *******.
Or poor fermentation management.

Joella the 'Chak once said something like: "Color doesn't turn
new beer drinkers away, hops do." That is, Guinness is a good
training-wheels beer, Pliny the Elder is not.

If your homebrew is inducing hangovers, spend the $200 on a
garage fridge and tighter-than-OEM thermostat.

Insofar as "constructive criticism", I suggest simply "grow
up". Lew and I get PAID for what we write.

That lends EXTRA SPECIAL weight to your comments.

(Imagine
drinking booze and coming out with more money than when you
started.)

Er, um...how do I put this? Only an asshole would take charity
out of the building. Goes into the tip jar if nothing else.
Me, I admit that I've only come out not paying anything.

If you are content to slather your "stream of
consciousness" blather online, far be it from me to stop
you, but as long as your material is semi-coherent, full of
misspellings, and riddled with half-truths, don't ever
expect a positive reception except from those who know even
less than you do.

Oh. Crap. That makes sense to me. Consider the above friendly
chiding.



Scott Kaczorowski
Long Beach, CA

Scott Kaczorowski wrote:
Joella the 'Chak once said something like: "Color doesn't turn
new beer drinkers away, hops do." That is, Guinness is a good
training-wheels beer, Pliny the Elder is not.

Either that was an early conclusion, or you got it
only half right. I think both color and bitterness turn
off inexperienced beer drinkers. I'm convinced I could
serve colored Bud to people and most of them would
think it was robust and high in alcohol. Just like
draught Giuness [sic].

And Guinness *is* a good training wheels beer.
--
Joel Plutchak "Eat everything. Have fun." - Julia Child.
plutchak at [...]

ers (Joel) wrote in
:

Scott Kaczorowski wrote:
Joella the 'Chak once said something like: "Color doesn't
turn new beer drinkers away, hops do." That is, Guinness
is a good training-wheels beer, Pliny the Elder is not.

Either that was an early conclusion, or you got it
only half right.

Rethinking...You said "color puts new beer drinkers off less
than high-hop rates."

Closer?



Idiot Dumb****
Somewhere, CA

"Alexander D. Mitchell IV" wrote in message
...

But corn (and corn sugar) gets dissed for particular reasons. It's cheap,
it adds almost no discernible positive attributes to better beer recipes,

No. No, no, no, no, no, no, no. ********. Etc.

Enormous numbers of English bitters are brewed using corn and/or corn sugar.
And they're excellent beers.

The problem is not corn. It's the *proportion* that's the problem in beers
like Miller and Coors (or the crappy kit homebrews you mention).


-Steve

I suspect you haven't attempted a PrePro or an Abbey. Or even a
trad Bitter or fruit beer (And **** the rest of you in advance:
I had an Oud Beersel Kriek the other day, and while not
spectacular is was very much enjoyable.) Adjuncts have a
legitimate place in brewing, period.

Let's see............ over in my homebrew rack, there's a peach lambic, a
peach mead, a heavily-spiced Xmas beer, a black-cherry-and-honey stout, a
pumpkin ale (well, technically Blue Hubbard squash), and a future
prickly-pear beer to go with the prickly-pear mead and the honeysuckle
meads............ Oh, and the ciders.

I'm all for adjuncts, personally. But given my personal experiences with
corn/corn sugar as an adjunct, I'd have to be brewing someone else's beers
before I use corn.

and it fuels
every bad memory of folks' first homebrew, particularly in
the cases of folks who bought certain cans of extract and
followed the directions on the can label.

In my experience homebrewing, I have never, once, ever found
adjuncts to contribute to hangovers. Not once. Ever. If this
were so, mead (or wine) would be undrinkable.

snip

I never said anything about hangovers. What I was referring to was
unpalatable/undrinkable beers--typically with corn sugars, tart and
offensive flavors. And usually, it's the result of someone following
exactly the directions on a can of malt extract, which say something on the
order of "dissolve the contents of this can and four cups of corn sugar in
hot water....."

Insofar as "constructive criticism", I suggest simply "grow
up". Lew and I get PAID for what we write.

That lends EXTRA SPECIAL weight to your comments.

(Imagine
drinking booze and coming out with more money than when you
started.)

Er, um...how do I put this? Only an asshole would take charity
out of the building. Goes into the tip jar if nothing else.
Me, I admit that I've only come out not paying anything.

* I don't mean "going out drinking and not paying for it". Were any of us
that lucky. I mean going out drinking, writing about the experiences and
news, getting paid for it, and finding that the pay for the writing is more
than you spent for the month on beer.

If you are content to slather your "stream of
consciousness" blather online, far be it from me to stop
you, but as long as your material is semi-coherent, full of
misspellings, and riddled with half-truths, don't ever
expect a positive reception except from those who know even
less than you do.

Oh. Crap. That makes sense to me. Consider the above friendly
chiding.

Well............... there may be hope yet.

"Alexander D. Mitchell IV" wrote
in :

I'm all for adjuncts, personally. But given my personal
experiences with corn/corn sugar as an adjunct, I'd have to
be brewing someone else's beers before I use corn.

I think corn can be used to good effect in brewing. But fair
'nuff.

In my experience homebrewing, I have never, once, ever
found adjuncts to contribute to hangovers. Not once.
Ever. If this were so, mead (or wine) would be
undrinkable.

snip

I never said anything about hangovers. What I was
referring to was unpalatable/undrinkable beers--typically
with corn sugars, tart and offensive flavors.

I stand by my statement. Hangovers, tartness...all about
mishandling the ferment, not the adjuncts themselves.

How 'bout this: I know personally someone in Ohio who makes
'meads' from nothing but corn syrup from the local grocery.
Corn syrup, water, yeast, and NOTHING more. I don't know how to
make that more clearerer. He has a wall full of blue ribbons
and gold medals and score sheets that say things like "fabulous
honey character!"

Now, I realize this is a (poor) reflection on mead judges, but
the point is: A fermented beverage can be made from nothing
other than what would normally be considered an adjunct and be
considered a good beverage. No tartness, no unpalatableness.

And usually,
it's the result of someone following exactly the directions
on a can of malt extract, which say something on the order
of "dissolve the contents of this can and four cups of corn
sugar in hot water....."

I realize you exaggerate for effect, but I've never seen that
recipe or anything like it, not even in an abbey-style.

Insofar as "constructive criticism", I suggest simply
"grow up". Lew and I get PAID for what we write.

That lends EXTRA SPECIAL weight to your comments.

(Imagine
drinking booze and coming out with more money than when
you started.)

Er, um...how do I put this? Only an asshole would take
charity out of the building. Goes into the tip jar if
nothing else. Me, I admit that I've only come out not
paying anything.

* I don't mean "going out drinking and not paying for it".
Were any of us that lucky. I mean going out drinking,
writing about the experiences and news, getting paid for
it, and finding that the pay for the writing is more than
you spent for the month on beer.

That is not what you said. Not even sort of.

If you are content to slather your "stream of
consciousness" blather online, far be it from me to stop
you, but as long as your material is semi-coherent, full
of misspellings, and riddled with half-truths, don't ever
expect a positive reception except from those who know
even less than you do.

Oh. Crap. That makes sense to me. Consider the above
friendly chiding.

Well............... there may be hope yet.

Back atcha.


Scott Kaczorowski
Long Beach, CA

But corn (and corn sugar) gets dissed for particular reasons. It's
cheap, it adds almost no discernible positive attributes to better
beer recipes...

One method is to distill the corn, and age it in a charred oak barrel.
Then after drinking the, um, bourbon, use the barrel to store a kick-ass
barleywine for six months like the one last year at Tyranena brewery in Lake
Mills. The first time I had it, I wondered what on earth I was going to do
with the rest of the $3 pint after drinking the first sip. But then, like a
moth to a flame, I kept going back for more. The barleywine alone is
palate-imploding enough, but the six-month bourbon kick of this product made
the whole experience like being dragged through a swamp full of alligators
and mung-lizards with grain silos exploding left and right while a volcanic
cleft emits half-cooled, half-bubbling quasi-organic substances into the
swampwaters from the center of the earth while the sky is dense with
frenetic tornadic activity mysteriously drawing in vegetal matter, tree
frogs, and foreign primordial essences from the Amazon rain forest. This is
somewhat an understatement of the true depth of the flavor.

Such is a worthwhile use of corn. Tyranena does not have the
bourbon-barrel barleywine this year that I have seen, though.

How 'bout this: I know personally someone in Ohio who makes
'meads' from nothing but corn syrup from the local grocery.
Corn syrup, water, yeast, and NOTHING more. I don't know how to
make that more clearerer. He has a wall full of blue ribbons
and gold medals and score sheets that say things like "fabulous
honey character!"

Now, I realize this is a (poor) reflection on mead judges, but
the point is: A fermented beverage can be made from nothing
other than what would normally be considered an adjunct and be
considered a good beverage. No tartness, no unpalatableness.

*IF this is indeed true, he's committing fraud (either by winning with a
drink that isn't made according to style), or else he's the only one
entering the particular competition. I know mead makers and "judges" that
would probably spot that stuff a mile away. (But boy, have you given me an
idea for a "ringer" for the next nead competition tasting.........)

I am in no way denying that corn a) can make a drinkable, even desirable
fermented drink or b) can be added to beer. What I will stand behind is
saying that a beer using any sizeable quantity of corn sugar or maize is
not likely to win over any serious beer snobs, whether or not they know the
corn is in there or not. I've had some very interesting corn-augmented malt
liquors made by breweries in my area (Dogfish Head's Liquor de Malt and
Ellicott Mills' M.F. Malt Liquor, as two); although they both are enormous
improvements over the Crazy Horse or Colt 45 one finds in the gutters,
they're still both about the last beers I would drink from the respective
breweries.

And usually,
it's the result of someone following exactly the directions
on a can of malt extract, which say something on the order
of "dissolve the contents of this can and four cups of corn
sugar in hot water....."

I realize you exaggerate for effect, but I've never seen that
recipe or anything like it, not even in an abbey-style.

*Okay, granted, I'm not in the homebrew shop right now, but I do just happen
to have three really old (and empty) malt-extract cans from England in my
basement. Technically, the directions were on the little round instruction
sheet they put in under the cap of the can that also held the yeast.

Both the Arkells Strong Bitter and Kellar Premium Lager and the Edme Amber
instructions give two options: two cans for five gallons, or one can and a
quantity of corn sugar. I have friends that made their first homebrews
following the latter instructions; they were universally thin in body,
somewhat acidic and wine/cider-like, maybe they could have been called
"Belgian-style" if one stretched the imagination a bit. Whatever they were,
they were nothing like a bitter, a lager, or a pale ale. One friend was
sloppy in his sanitation, the other two meticulous. And every experienced
brewer that tasted the stuff said the same thing: "You followed the corn
sugar recipe, didn't you? Never do that again; go with the all-malt
extract."

And I myself did the same thing, with the Arkells Strong Bitter. I still
have one last bottle left of it. Wretched stuff. The last two bottles of
the second, all-malt batch should be like old Ballantines IPA, save for the
green glass.

"Alexander D. Mitchell IV" wrote in message
...

What I will stand behind is saying that a beer using any sizeable
quantity of corn sugar or maize is not likely to win over any serious beer
snobs, whether or not they know the corn is in there or not.

Well, there's the rub. What's a "sizeable" quantity? Five to 10 percent? If
so, then I guess beer snobs won't really be won over by a lot of English
bitters. Twenty, thirty percent? Then I guess my beer snob friends who've
been quite impressed with various pre-prohibition lagers that contain that
much corn had an off day.

Corn is not inherently flawed, as you continue to imply. It's all in how
it's used, and whether or not there's anything else going on with the beer.
As with any ingredient. About the only ingredient that a beer doesn't suffer
from in excess is barley.

-Steve

"Alexander D. Mitchell IV" wrote
in :

How 'bout this: I know personally someone in Ohio who
makes 'meads' from nothing but corn syrup from the local
grocery. Corn syrup, water, yeast, and NOTHING more. I
don't know how to make that more clearerer. He has a wall
full of blue ribbons and gold medals and score sheets that
say things like "fabulous honey character!"

Now, I realize this is a (poor) reflection on mead judges,
but the point is: A fermented beverage can be made from
nothing other than what would normally be considered an
adjunct and be considered a good beverage. No tartness,
no unpalatableness.

*IF this is indeed true,

It is.

he's committing fraud (either by
winning with a drink that isn't made according to style),
or else he's the only one entering the particular
competition.

I agree. The guidelines clearly say: "Honey's gotta be in
there."

I know mead makers and "judges" that would
probably spot that stuff a mile away.

Well, I'm a "judge" and I've got recipes in Bees Lees and
I've had it and I'm telling you it is a reasonable facsimile.
I promise you you would be surprised. Maybe not impressed,
but surprised.

There are so many problems with judging, it's difficult to
know where to start...But what often happens is someone who
has little to no experience with a certain style/category
finds themselves sitting at that table. Because of this, I
know homebrewers who don't make very good beer and who can't
enter enough contests. They also have walls full of blue
ribbons and feel this validates their brewing ability. I
feel it means they got lucky through repetition.

I am in no way denying that corn a) can make a drinkable,
even desirable fermented drink or b) can be added to beer.
What I will stand behind is saying that a beer using any
sizeable quantity of corn sugar or maize is not likely to
win over any serious beer snobs, whether or not they know
the corn is in there or not.

I think those two statements are somewhat at odds with each
other (yes, I see the "sizeable"). Adjuncts can make a good
beer; adjuncts cannot make a beer to impress the snobs among
us.

First of all, **** the beer snobs.

Second of all, it seems to me that you are focusing on Miller
and ignoring English Bitter and Tripel.

And usually,
it's the result of someone following exactly the
directions on a can of malt extract, which say something
on the order of "dissolve the contents of this can and
four cups of corn sugar in hot water....."

I realize you exaggerate for effect, but I've never seen
that recipe or anything like it, not even in an
abbey-style.

*Okay, granted, I'm not in the homebrew shop right now, but
I do just happen to have three really old (and empty)
malt-extract cans from England in my basement.
Technically, the directions were on the little round
instruction sheet they put in under the cap of the can that
also held the yeast.

Both the Arkells Strong Bitter and Kellar Premium Lager and
the Edme Amber

I used Geordie's.

instructions give two options: two cans for
five gallons, or one can and a quantity of corn sugar. I
have friends that made their first homebrews following the
latter instructions; they were universally thin in body,
somewhat acidic and wine/cider-like, maybe they could have
been called "Belgian-style" if one stretched the
imagination a bit. Whatever they were, they were nothing
like a bitter, a lager, or a pale ale. One friend was
sloppy in his sanitation, the other two meticulous. And
every experienced brewer that tasted the stuff said the
same thing: "You followed the corn sugar recipe, didn't
you? Never do that again; go with the all-malt extract."

I've also had that beer. Hell, I've made that beer.

My (actually "our") crowning achievement was something we
ended up calling Romulan Ale. My brew partner and I started
to try to make a light ale (whatever that is) for St. Patty's
circa 1987 using two cans of light Geordie's. There were
three or four dumbasses in the other room going quickly
through two cases of Bud and a six of Guinness and a six of
Bass (as were we). They'd swoop in to the kitchen...we were
just as stupid/impaired as they were...At one point an entire
5lb bag of C&H got dumped into the kettle. At pitching, we
added an entire (1oz?) bottle of green food coloring (you
could taste it in the finished "product"). At the end of the
ferment, the whole mess was pale blue. Go figure. But hence
the name. The stuff was drinkable, but it was thin and
vinous and just nasty.

I do get your point. I do.

The thin-ness comes from the very low amount of
unfermentables contributed by the extract. While the OG may
be within the range of the target beer, the sugar will
ferment completely away and the FG will be nowhere close.
You would get a very similar beer were you to simply use the
one can of extract and leave the sugar out entirely. The
corn sugar in that recipe is meant to make it cheaper, not
equivalent to the two-can recipe. If the argument (not your
argument) is that 2lbs of sugar will yield the same or
similar results to a can of extract...think about it for a
sec. As far as vinous...I think that also comes from the
zero body (and therefore the over-assertion of the bittering
hops in the extract) and/or the crappy yeast that is often
used with these kits. Also, I don't believe there's a
sanitation problem here. These types of beers are almost
always made by rank novices (nothing wrong with that) and are
almost always fermented at a too-high temp. And over-hopped,
and gypsumed/salted ala Papapazian and...just generally
dicked around with.

You can't blame the corn sugar. You just can't. IMO.


Scott Kaczorowski
Long Beach, CA

"Steve Jackson" wrote in
news:uMfgf.16754$tT1.13926@trnddc01:

About the only ingredient that a beer doesn't
suffer from in excess is barley.

Wheat? Rye? Hops? Candi? So you're buying Arrogant *******
by the case now, right?

You are like a god to me.



Spinster the Prude

Scott Kaczorowski wrote:
(Joel) wrote in
:

Scott Kaczorowski wrote:
Joella the 'Chak once said something like: "Color doesn't
turn new beer drinkers away, hops do." That is, Guinness
is a good training-wheels beer, Pliny the Elder is not.

Either that was an early conclusion, or you got it
only half right.

Rethinking...You said "color puts new beer drinkers off less
than high-hop rates."

Closer?

What, you expect me to remember what I think? Fat
chance.

But probably closer. Or even close.
--
Joel Plutchak "Eat everything. Have fun." - Julia Child.
plutchak at [...]

Steve Jackson wrote:
"Alexander D. Mitchell IV" wrote:
What I will stand behind is saying that a beer using any sizeable
quantity of corn sugar or maize is not likely to win over any serious beer
snobs, whether or not they know the corn is in there or not.

Well, there's the rub. What's a "sizeable" quantity? Five to 10 percent? If
so, then I guess beer snobs won't really be won over by a lot of English
bitters. Twenty, thirty percent? Then I guess my beer snob friends who've
been quite impressed with various pre-prohibition lagers that contain that
much corn had an off day.

Corn is not inherently flawed, as you continue to imply. It's all in how
it's used, and whether or not there's anything else going on with the beer.
As with any ingredient. About the only ingredient that a beer doesn't suffer
from in excess is barley.

I recently participated in a brew session where a full
*half* the fermentable ingredients by weight (which means
well over half by % fermentable sugars after mashing)
was corn sugar. I was dubious, but have tasted the
resulting beer and it was more than merely drinkable--
it was actually pleasant, and had more flavor than
take-your-pick megabrew.
--
Joel Plutchak "Eat everything. Have fun." - Julia Child.
plutchak at [...]

My (actually "our") crowning achievement was something we
ended up calling Romulan Ale. My brew partner and I started
to try to make a light ale (whatever that is) for St. Patty's
circa 1987 using two cans of light Geordie's. There were
three or four dumbasses in the other room going quickly
through two cases of Bud and a six of Guinness and a six of
Bass (as were we). They'd swoop in to the kitchen...we were
just as stupid/impaired as they were...At one point an entire
5lb bag of C&H got dumped into the kettle. At pitching, we
added an entire (1oz?) bottle of green food coloring (you
could taste it in the finished "product"). At the end of the
ferment, the whole mess was pale blue. Go figure. But hence
the name. The stuff was drinkable, but it was thin and
vinous and just nasty.

So YOU'RE the one.

There's a bottle of Romulan Ale sitting on my friend's beer shelf today
(western suburbs of Baltimore).

The glass of the bottle is stained blue.

Do you need a photo for your collection?

"Alexander D. Mitchell IV" wrote
in :


My (actually "our") crowning achievement was something we
ended up calling Romulan Ale. My brew partner and I
started to try to make a light ale (whatever that is) for
St. Patty's circa 1987 using two cans of light Geordie's.
There were three or four dumbasses in the other room going
quickly through two cases of Bud and a six of Guinness and
a six of Bass (as were we). They'd swoop in to the
kitchen...we were just as stupid/impaired as they
were...At one point an entire 5lb bag of C&H got dumped
into the kettle. At pitching, we added an entire (1oz?)
bottle of green food coloring (you could taste it in the
finished "product"). At the end of the ferment, the whole
mess was pale blue. Go figure. But hence the name. The
stuff was drinkable, but it was thin and vinous and just
nasty.

So YOU'RE the one.

Heh! But no, it was not widely distributed.

There's a bottle of Romulan Ale sitting on my friend's beer
shelf today (western suburbs of Baltimore).

The glass of the bottle is stained blue.

Do you need a photo for your collection?

Please. . Please send a pic. My brew partner
at the time is still I of my best friends. We will toast
you.


Spinster McPrude McAsswipe O'Dumbass
Long Beach, CA